The "Empty Pews" Survey-Part III: One Last Look

As I wrote when I began this little look at the study sponsored by the Trenton Diocese and highlighted in a recent America Magazine article, I have seriously mixed emotions about the results, and even the method used in collecting the data.  Its purpose was to see why people left the Church, and by knowing hopefully the Church's leaders can expand dialogue and find solutions to the problem of the steady exodus from our parishes.  Fare enough.  As I also wrote, I read nothing that I haven't heard before.  This doesn't make the study any less relevant to be sure, and can point to the fact that not much progress has been made over the years in stopping the hemorrhaging of parishioners.  All the same, there is a tone to the article the denotes an agenda, and a tired one at that; that somehow the Church needs to change on core teachings and practices in order to stop the decline in participation.  This is just wrong headed, and by now it should be clear to everyone that being heterodox is not the solution to the Church's problems. 

The authors of the article, who also oversaw the study, never come right out and say the we need to ordain women, dispense with clerical celibacy and embrace gay marriage, but when I read lines like these I'm only left to wonder what they really think, but not that much:

There is much to be learned from all this. Considering that these responses come, by definition, from a disaffected group, it is noteworthy that their tone is overwhelmingly positive and that the respondents appreciated the opportunity to express themselves. Some of their recommendations will surely have a positive impact on diocesan life. Not surprisingly, the church’s refusal to ordain women, to allow priests to marry, to recognize same-sex marriage and to admit divorced and remarried persons to reception of the Eucharist surfaced, as did contraception and a host of questions associated with the scandal of sexual abuse by members of the clergy.

Throughout our involvement with this project, we thought of the “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues that would be raised. All the concerns expressed will, we hope, be received with pastoral understanding. Diocesan officials are taking notice of topics that call for better explanation. As they do, we hope that they will bear in mind the comment cited by one man, who said that “every time you ask a question, you get a rule.” It is not necessary to repeat the rules; it is time to offer more reasoned arguments and better pastoral explanations of points of Catholic doctrine and practice that appear to be troubling to people in the diocese. Notable among these are the exclusion of women from ordination, the perception that persons of homosexual orientation are unwelcome in the church, the complexity of the annulment process and the barring of divorced and remarried persons from the sacraments.

I quoted at length because I wanted to show that there was an attempt to be balanced, but an agenda does become clear if you read between the lines.  While the Church needs to better explain Her doctrines in a clear and reasoned way to the faithful and not just recite rules (true enough) the idea that there are firmly settled, non-negotiable issues is dismissed by the simple use of quotation marks.  It's not that the Church maintains an all male clergy, recognizes marriage as an indissoluble union between one woman and one man; it's that we "refuse" to ordain women or "recognize" gay marriage or admit divorced and remarried people to Communion.  These clear, long standing and settled matters are phrased in the negative; as if they are rights or privileges being denied rather than simply teachings and practices handed on and preserved through the centuries; reflections of the authentic Apostolic Faith inspired by the Spirit.  The implication is that these need to be treated as somehow negotiable, and those hard headed bishops need to get with the times and start giving ground or all will be lost.  Just in case we didn't pick up on the point we see the litany of the "Should be Negotiables" listed twice in two paragraphs.

Am I reading too much into their conclusions?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  These are difficult problems that many people today have a hard time understanding.  The issue of divorce and remarriage is especially heart rending.  We should go out of our way not to simply quote the Catechism but delve deeper with those who question us.  Are people choosing to leave over these things? Yes.  But two points.

1. Over the last almost forty years participation in organized religion in the U.S. has declined across the board; Catholic, Protestant and Jewish.  The sharpest declines have been among the Mainline Protestant churches, many of which long ago admitted women into their clergy, and became more permissive on sexual ethics and life issues, especially on matters of divorce, abortion and homosexuality.  They made these changes to be more in line with the modern world, and I do believe many thought they were better reflecting God's mercy and love.  But where are they today?  The Anglican Communion is in shambles over these very issues, particularly over sexual morality and the ordination of women.   We can see the fruits of these moves; can we honestly say that this is the path the Spirit wants us to take?

2.  In the Gospel reading for Saturday of the Third Week of Easter we come to the end the sixth Chapter of John, where Jesus has just finished giving his bread of life discourse.  Some find his words, that his flesh is real food and his blood real drink, too hard to endure, and so they leave.  Jesus turns to the Twelve and asks if they want to go also, but Peter answers for them:  "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."  Jesus did not modify, he did not back track, he did try to argue.  He simply let his words stand on their own to be accepted or rejected.  That anyone leaves Communion with the Church is a tragedy, and it should not be taken lightly.  We do have a responsibility to explain our Savior's words as expressed in Scripture and Tradition, with clarity, charity and patience.  But some will never be able to accept, and we have to be ready for that.  Whether we want to believe it or not, there is a rift between the culture and the Faith; some things can and should be reconciled, but others will never be.  And maybe we'll never be able to explain ourselves perfectly, but that will be a reflection of our own human limitations, not of the veracity of  the Gospel.

So I end with the same mixed feelings I began with.  I see value in the study, but reservations about how it was conducted, and am not sure exactly what conclusions we are expected to take out of it.  If it's a call for better catechises and apologetics, I'm all for it.  But if this is just another attempt to beat the same tired "progressive" drum, then I'm stepping out of the parade.